Monday, November 03, 2008

Bullet points on the eve of the election

No, I don't mean bullets aimed at any of the candidates, but a bullet point summary of things to consider tomorrow, from Neal Boortz:


I chose that opening line rather than "what's the use." Election day is tomorrow, so there's definitely a chance here to prevent perhaps irreparable harm to our Republic ... maybe not a huge chance ... but a chance.

Never in the last 100 years has someone so completely inexperienced and so far to the left been so close to becoming our president. It is beyond imagination that we've come to this.

I really don't have the time before I go on the air to craft (if that's the word) a lengthy narrative on this campaign and the importance of our vote tomorrow ... so we go with bullet points. They don't necessarily flow together all that well ... but each gets a point across that is, I think, important.

Who knows ... maybe someone will read some of these points and tell themselves that they just can't pull the trigger for this dangerous leftist when they get into the voting booth. Others will read this and just have their feelings about how much trouble freedom and economic liberty in this country are in totally reinforced.

  • One question about Obama that has never been satisfactorily answered is "What has he ever accomplished?" The best his supporters can come up with is "He was elected to the U.S. Senate." So was John McCain ... several times. Besides, take a look at his election. He had two opponents self-destruct with scandal. The GOP had to go to Maryland and talk Alan Keyes into moving to Illinois to run against Obama. Trust me, that win was no sterling accomplishment.

  • Don't argue with me here. You'll lose. There is NO constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. We're going to learn in a few days just how smart our founding fathers were in this regard.

  • Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. Several times during his political career Obama had a chance to either cast a vote or make a statement against the corruption that permeates Chicago's machine. Never – not on one occasion – did he do so.

  • The fact is, Obama has benefited from corruption (Tony Rezko?) but has never fought it.

  • Do you know how Obama won his first election in Illinois? He had campaign operatives go to the voting office and work hundreds of hours pouring over petitions to have his opponents thrown off the ballot. I guess that means that this is the first real election battle he's ever been in!

  • I guess it's just me, but all this time I thought that the government used its power to seize property ... i.e., to tax ... in order to fund the necessary and appropriate functions of government. Now, under Obama, we've learned that one of the appropriate functions of government is to take from those who have and give to those who have not. I prefer a different phraseology: Take from those who achieve, and give to those who achieve not. Karl Marx was of a like mind.

  • Obama's "spread the wealth around" mantra means that he believes that we do not leave our homes every morning to work for ourselves and our families. We leave our homes to work for the government. We belong to government, not to ourselves. The government will determine how much of the money we earn we deserve to keep .. the rest goes to people the government believes to be even more deserving of the fruits of our labors.

  • Obama's candidacy would have faltered before an educated electorate. Why do you think Democrats love government schools so much? Do you want examples? I've got examples.

  • Obama says he's going to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. Americans don't realize that over 40% of their numbers don't pay income taxes; and since they don't realize that, they aren't asking themselves how Obama can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes.

  • Obama has effectively change the definition of "tax cut." From now on any government handout to any worker is a tax cut. Changing this definition may well be one of their greatest accomplishments in this election and that new definition will cause us problems for decades.

  • Obama constantly rants about those dirty corporations who shipped "our jobs overseas." An educated voter knows that those jobs belong to the employers, not the employees. Workers look for jobs. Employers with jobs look for workers. Pretty simple, really.

  • Obama also tells us that 95% of small businesses out there will not have their taxes increased. The only reason this line works is because our government educated voters cannot grasp the idea that it isn't the percentage of small businesses hit with tax increases that counts; it's the percentage of small business employees represented by the unfortunate 5% that counts. Tomorrow thousands of workers – perhaps tens of thousands of workers – employed by what we call "small businesses" will cast a vote that, a year or so down the road, will cost them their jobs.

  • Over the weekend Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry if they tried to build any more coal-fired power plants. Can any of you think of a time when any president has ever made an overt threat to bankrupt a large American industry?

  • Obama says that his "cap and trade" policy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost electricity prices to "skyrocket." Oops ... there goes some of that middle class "tax cut." Guess he'll have to transfer some more wealth to help his constituents pay the increased price.

  • There are literally millions of Obama supporters out there who think that once Obama becomes the president their lives are going to become sweetness, roses and light. One woman at an Obama rally

  • Remember Obama's 30-minute infomercial? If a foreigner with no knowledge of our country or our people were to see that program they would think that America was a country mired in abject misery and depravation. Thanks, Obama, for the nice positive message.

  • How long after the election, whether Obama wins or loses, do you think it will take for that America-hater Jeremiah Wright to surface?

  • The top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of all income taxes. The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes. When these people don't want to give up a larger share of their earnings Obama call's them "selfish."

  • When someone is content to sit on their butts and wait for Obama to transfer some wealth from someone else to their pockets they are not "selfish."

  • Every one of the points I am bringing up here is "hate speech" to an Obamacon.

  • The great Democrat goal is to have more than 50% of the voters living, at least in part, on the efforts of the minority of voters. When we pass that tipping point ... and we're nearly there ... game over.

  • In every election since 1952 Democrats have told the voters "vote for the Republicans and they'll take your Social Security away." In every election after 2008 the Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay taxes." Then if Obama wins again, in every election after 2012 Democrats will say "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you pay for your own Social Security and Medicare." How long before we hear: "Vote for the Republicans and they'll make you work for a living!"

  • Obama will definitely destroy your right to be armed outside of your own home for your own protection. The question is whether we count the time until he accomplishes this in days, weeks, months or years.

  • Do you see now why politicians, especially Democrats, aren't fond of the FairTax? Without playing his tax scam and wealth envy card Obama would have been toast by Super Tuesday.

  • Surveys in Israel show that 76% of Israeli citizens want McCain to win. American Jews will vote for Obama by pretty much the same percentage. What do Jews in Israel know that Jews in America do not?

  • Peter Nicholas is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He has been traveling with Obama for almost the entire campaign. Nicholas writes "After all this time with him, I still can't say with certainty who he is." Nicholas doesn't know him, but so many voters are so sure they do.

  • Obama wants a national civilian security force that, in his words, is "just as strong as our military." Who would they serve under? What would their mandate be? Would they be unionized? (oh HELL yes!). Would this be like the Soviet Union under Communism where neighbors ratted on neighbors for anti-government statements? And what does he mean "as strong as our military?" Would this national civilian security force have nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? Are we just talking about a glorified national police? (Show us your papers!)

  • Obama has talked about reducing spending on our military. One leading Democrat Senator has suggested a 25% spending cut on defense. Do you feel comfortable with that? You do know that all of the savings would be spent on buying votes, don't you?

  • Do you home school your children? Obama has called home schooling a fraud. Put him in office and you'll be putting your kids back in government schools for their indoctrination.

  • Do you run a small business? If Obama wins start planning immediately to lower your work force. The best way to do this would be through efficiency measures and temporary staffing agencies. Not only is Obama going to make it easier for your workers to unionize ... he's going to expand onerous measures such as the Family Leave Act. You will end up paying your employees a good portion of their salary to lay out for weeks on end.

  • Maybe you shop at Wal-Mart. Get ready for higher prices. Obama's instant unionization bill will surely result in the unionization of Wal-Mart's workforce. In fact, as much as Democrat politicians hate Wal-Mart, it's safe to say that Wal-Mart is target number one. The result? Higher prices for you. If Obama can call a government handout a tax cut, we can call higher prices a tax increase. This will be Obama's tax increase on the poor and the middle class.

OK ... run with those. We'll come up with more. In the meantime ... some details:


Barack Obama grand stands about his plans to create jobs in America. He claims that he is going to create millions of "green" jobs. What he doesn't tell you is that he wants to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coal industry. And he doesn't say this to the workers in Ohio or Pennsylvania ... he goes and says this in San Francisco – the same place he went to complain about ordinary bitter people clinging to their guns or religion.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January of this year, Obama says that he intends to bankrupt the coal industry. Keep in mind that last year, more than 120,000 Americans were employed by the coal industry. Also keep in mind that 49% of energy in this country is currently generated by coal. But what Obama wants to do is institute an aggressive cap-and-trade policy where "polluters" will be charged for every unit of emissions.

He says, "If someone wants to build a coal power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being admitted."

So we are about to elect a man who has openly admitted his intentions to bankrupt an entire industry.

Then this video from 2007 shouldn't come as a shock ... Obama wants "price signals" (on energy) in order to "change behavior." He acknowledges that his cap-and-trade policies will increase costs for consumers, and yet he still wants to do it. However, don't you worry, he does want the government (aka. the taxpayers) to help out the poor people who will have to pay these higher prices, thanks to government caps. And for "those of you who can afford it" you are going to have to pay more for electricity. That's convenient.


Back in 2003 when Obama was running for Senate (unopposed), he said that he was opposed to the Bush tax cuts for "people who didn't need then and didn't ask for them." That's original. But then he goes on to say that we should have given a tax cut to working families ... okay, that sounds like what we've heard on the presidential campaign trail. But then he continues to say that these "working families" would be those making 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year. Hmmm $70,000 is a long ways from the $250,000 that Obama started with in his presidential run. Now that figure is creeping further and further down.

Speaking of taxes ...


Just days before the election, this is Obama's stump speech ... that John McCain and Sarah Palin have made a virtue out of "selfishness."

This is the mentality of the next president of the United States. See if you can follow:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich ... I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That's the American dream, that's the American way, that's terrific. The point is, though, that -- and it's not just charity, it's not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it's that when we actually make sure that everybody's got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody's got decent health care, when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise ..."

Then he comes up with this line: "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic ... You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

So there you go. Now, if you do not want the government to take your wealth and redistribute it to people who don't pay taxes, this makes you a selfish person. On the other hand, if you do not work and you want the government to take money from someone who does and give it to you, you are not selfish. Not even greedy – whatever that is.

If you want to talk about selfish, why not take a look at statistics which clearly show that Conservatives – those who would most likely not support Obama's spread the wealth mentality – donate more to charity. Even though liberal households tend to have incomes, conservatives households give 30% more to charity than the average liberal household. And guess what? It didn't take the force of government to do that.


The story of Obama's poor aunt continues. Now the Obama campaign is returning her campaign contributions because it turns out that she is living illegally in the United States. A few questions though ...

If Obama's own aunt, who is an illegal alien, was able to donate to the Obama campaign ... how many other illegal contributions have been made and yet to be vetted?

Also, notice how this story was quickly changed by the mainstream media. The story was not about the aunt, her illegal status, or her illegal campaign contributions ... it became about whether or not this was a ploy of the McCain campaign or the Bush administration.

That's the media line. Any negative story about Obama just has to be something planted by the evil Republicans.

No comments: